Member review

The 1984 adaptation of George Orwell’s acclaimed novel “1984” (published in 1949) is a brilliantly shot, powerfully acted and disturbingly relevant cautionary tale about the power of the media, the futility of war and the effects of a totalitarian society. On a technical level, “1984” is impressive, but that doesn’t change the fact that I hated every minute of this meandering, pompous and miserable movie!

Before I explain why I didn’t like this film, I’d like to point out that I’ve never read the original novel “1984.” I’ve picked up information about the story from other pieces of media (from the torture scene in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” to the plot of “Spectre”), but aside from references, I knew very little about the plot or characters, so I have no idea if this is an honest adaptation of the source material or not.

Despite my unfamiliarity with “1984”, I knew going into the film that I wasn’t in for a treat. I was forced to study George Orwell’s equally disturbing book “Animal Farm” and watch both of its motion picture adaptations a few years ago, so the prospect of enduring another dour and harrowing Orwell “masterpiece” didn’t inspire much confidence in me.

Just as expected, “1984” was a slog to sit through; it’s a slow, melancholy and downright horrible film, full of physical and psychological torture, uncomfortable nudity and rabid rats. I wasn’t expecting a gag-a-minute comedy from “1984”, but it’s so shockingly dire that I can’t understand why anyone likes this story, or why teenagers are subjected to it in school.

Especially in the modern world, I don’t need to hear the thoughts of a man from the 1940s on how dark the future is, when the world is on fire, the environment is collapsing and, this very week, George Orwell’s own country is cutting itself off from its allies. So watching a film like “1984” doesn’t exactly make me more optimistic about the future of our species!

Putting that doom and gloom aside, there are some redeeming factors to “1984.”

The performances throughout are solid. John Hurt is superb, Richard Burton is terrifying and Suzanna Hamilton is compelling, even if her character isn’t properly fleshed-out. The mopey-ness of the characters is overwhelming, but overall, the acting isn’t at fault in “1984.”

And lastly, “1984” is visually excellent; the washed-out cinematography, grimy and dilapidated sets and ragged costumes all work together to create a believable vision of a hellish and poverty-stricken society.

In conclusion, “1984” is a well-constructed film (the acting is effective and Roger Deakins’s cinematography is obviously terrific), but it’s a film that I would only recommend to those who love to wallow in sorrow and despair. It constantly batters the audience over the head with, what it believes is the incontrovertible truth, that the human race is destined to destroy itself. Even Big Brother couldn’t make me watch it again.